Annotation Intent of the Colorado supreme court in promulgating these instructions was to provide clear and impartial forms for use by the trial court in preparing instructions for juries. These forms are to be used with discrimination, keeping in mind that they are not law in themselves and, in order to continually provide accurate assistance to juries, must be refined and modified in accord with changes in statutes and the body of appellate decisions. Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo. App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). In promulgating the Colorado jury instructions, it was not the purpose of the Colorado supreme court to compile a restatement or an encyclopedia of prevailing law. Gallegos v. Graff, 32 Colo. App. 213, 508 P.2d 798 (1973). Trial court did not err in refusing to give instruction in personal injury action which provided that, if the jury should find in favor of the plaintiff, it “should not add any sum for income taxes as such an award is not taxable under federal and state tax laws”, because the subject matter of this instruction is not covered in the Colorado jury instructions as one to be given. Davis v. Fortino & Jackson Chevrolet Co., 32 Colo. App. 222, 510 P.2d 1376 (1973). Trial court committed harmless error by instructing jury in personal injury action not to adjust amount of damages awarded in order to compensate for income taxes since damages are not taxable. Rego Co. v. McKown-Katy, 801 P.2d 536 (Colo. 1990). Court did not abuse its discretion in providing respondeat superior doctrine to jury in its jury instructions. Where medical negligence cases involve acts or omissions during surgery, the jury should be instructed that a surgeon is vicariously liable for the negligence of subordinate hospital employees. Ochoa v. Vered, 212 P.3d 963 (Colo. App. 2009). Jury instruction stating that ” an exercise of judgment that results in an unsuccessful outcome does not, by itself, mean that a physician was negligent” accurately reflects the law. The instruction does not impose a subjective standard of care on a physician whose exercise of judgment results in an unsuccessful outcome. Rather, it informs juries that a bad outcome that results from a physician’s exercise of judgment does not by itself constitute negligence. Day v. Johnson, 232 P.3d 175 (Colo. App. 2009), aff’d, 255 P.3d 1064 (Colo. 2011). Jury award of zero damages indicated that the jury failed to follow court instructions as the evidence was undisputed with respect to the existence and nature of the injuries sustained. Martinez v. Shapland, 833 P.2d 837 (Colo. App. 1992). The instructions found in the Colorado jury instructions are not to be used if they do not reflect the prevailing law. Federal Ins. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co., 194 Colo. 107, 570 P.2d 239 (1977). The trial court has the duty to examine the prevailing law to determine whether a Colorado jury instruction is applicable to the facts of the particular case and states the prevailing law. Federal Ins. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co., 194 Colo. 107, 570 P.2d 239 (1977). Where there was no statute or rule to support the presumption created by a jury instruction, the presumption could only be properly given if it was supported by common law rules governing the admissibility and evidentiary effect of defendant electrical utility’s compliance with industry standards. Yampa Valley Elec. v. Telecky, 862 P.2d 252 (Colo. 1993). Doctrine of sudden emergency abolished. The state’s negligence law no longer requires sudden emergency jury instruction. Jury instruction’s potential to mislead jury outweighs minimal utility of instruction. Bedor v. Johnson, 2013 CO 4, 292 P.3d 924. Applied in Sherwood v. Graco, Inc., 427 F. Supp. 155 (D. Colo. 1977); Price v. Sommermeyer, 41 Colo. App. 147, 584 P.2d 1220 (1978); Mailloux v. Bradley, 643 P.2d 797 (Colo. App. 1982); Peterson v. Tadolini, 97 P.3d 359 (Colo. App. 2004).